Sorry about that I didn't mean to be snide or offend people. And you are correct I have been complaining from the beginning about the potential for this to be a showcase for the more popular or prolific posters rather than an APUG book, so point taken. But you have to admit, you made the point several times early on in the thread that the most prolic posters (your own words) we not commenting. That's part of what got me going on this issue. From the beginning your view seems to have been that this cannot happen without the participation of certain people, and that we need to make sure they are not offended etc. You were also the first, I believe, to inform us of side conversations taking place behind the scenes, and have been most adamant in your objection to Michael Smith's participation in anything other than the book printing. Maybe your worry is this would end up being more of a MAS book than an APUG book. Not sure. Anyhow I guess I'm just overly suspicious of egos and such. Sorry again if my posts have been offensive.
Originally Posted by Ian Grant
Also regarding my refusal to participate at the steering level, there are simple pragmatic reasons for that, most importantly, I have zero experience with publication, books etc. I don't even know the intricacies of the various printing methods. I've never even entered my work in competitions or juried contests. So I'm not sure what real value I could have added.
Anyhow no hard feelings I hope.
Sold?? I would receive zero money from any sale. it would be an APUG book, with APUG ISBN, etc. not a Lodima Press book.
Re: the $50 for fifteen minutes that you object to for a critique. Since you are inside the beltway you probably are fairly intelligent. Therefore, I cannot understand why you cannot read that there is NO CHARGE for looking at work. For an in-depth critique, which would be ONLY if someone wanted it--NOT REQUIRED, $50 for 15 minutes is a bargain.
if that figure sounds high to you, consider what a lawyer charges for 15 minutes, to deal with something that most be probably prefer not to have to deal with. I assume that anyone who would be interested in a serious and deep critique considers photography to be something central to their lives. $50 for 15 minutes for something central to ones life is indeed a bargain. Photographers pay a lot more than that to get portfolio reviews at conferences, which usually last 20 minutes. I know. I have done that at those kinds of events. I also know that many of the reviewers are not helpful to the photographers.
I may have written this previously: In all workshops most have a good time and learn from a little to a lot, but afterward they do not necessarily make better pictures. After our workshop almost everyone make better pictures. And that is due in large part to our critiques.
Michael A. Smith
Oh, I can assure you that there is very little intelligence inside the beltway. Which is why I am soon taking a 1 year mental health break from it
Originally Posted by Michael A. Smith
[For non-US readers: the beltway is the road encircling Washington D.C.]
As for the $50 comment, it was a mere jab at your prior soliloquy. It was a joke at your expense. Pun intended.
My objection to any single-person review is not a joke. Under no circumstances would I submit an image for such a thing. Regardless of who the ordained reviewer might be. You are of course free to pursue whatever you wish and see what materializes.... who knows, maybe some will like it. Will it represent APUG, though? No, it'll represent your opinion. Is it not clear why some object to that?
As I posted quite some time ago in this and other threads and brought up in chatroom discussions, there is a very nice, tidy democratic way to accomplish what most of us want. It involves simply putting a nomination button beside all threads, comments, blog posts, and most importantly gallery content.
People would simply click the button beside content they'd like to see in a journal or book. If particular content received a certain number of "votes" (ah, there's the democracy) from subscribers (hey, even ideal democracy costs money) then that content would be automatically piped to a rotating editorial panel and prepped for inclusion in an APUG journal with minimal amendment.
There you have it, a self-populating periodical publication.
My proposal interests several people but it would require a wee bit of coding and I am simply too busy to make it happen. I was hoping Sean could but he is also very busy, of course. Perhaps some other coders might share my vision and have more time...?
Last edited by keithwms; 08-13-2011 at 09:14 PM. Click to view previous post history.
[QUOTE=keithwms;1222851]Will it represent APUG, though? No, it'll represent your opinion. Is it not clear why some object to that?
People would simply click a button beside content they'd like to see in a journal or book. If particular content received a certain number of "votes" (ah, Democracy at work!) from subscribers (the ruling class) then that content would be automatically piped to an editorial panel and prepped for inclusion in an APUG journal.
But is simple popularity the way to make a high quality book? The benefit, I think, of having an experienced, skilled, and (presumably) impartial editor is a certain level of overall quality (print quality for example) will count for something. After all, a significant amount of APUG forum activity has to do with technique.
The problem with a popularity vote would be that you'd end up with a book of sunsets, kittens and the hottest busty bra-less babes on APUG, without critical regard for technical or artistic quality. Just as there are many people here who would not submit work to any publication that is un-juried/edited/critiqued, there are an equal number who would not submit to anything that ISN'T juried/edited/critiqued. Not to fault either side, but quite frankly, I don't think there has ever been a successful, long-lasting art publication that has not had a discreet vision, well articulated, guiding and shaping the final product. Would any of you out there look at Vogue (or GQ, or LIFE) if they did not have a strong editorial vision controlling content? Producing a book is not a democratic exercise- there are too many moving parts that need coordination, and authors (or photographers, or any other producers of intellectual content) are always their own worst editors. Yes, it does mean that the final product is highly reflective of the vision of the editor, and may include or exclude content based upon that person's taste, but I'd rather have that than unintelligible chaos. I can use my own brain to perceive and filter the biases of the editor - if for example, they choose not to include any nudes in a volume of photos, I can deduce that they have a personal bias against such work, and would not assume that they did not find any quality work of that category to include.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Michael, Scott, hence the role of the editorial panel. I see the need for some limited editing, but I do not like the idea of one person making these calls.
My proposal allows for a wide spectrum of refereeing. There could be, for example, "Michael's pick" and there could be "politburo pick" and there could be "vox populi." All are possible within the framework I described. And all could delivered almost automatically without fuss.
(Some seem to be forgetting how much time goes into piping content into a magazine or book, never mind the time it takes for editors and critics to bicker among themselves; I once saw a fairly large photo forum literally implode over this very issue)
If people want to get fancy then there could be contributed editorials, $50 critiques, and, heaven forbid, even revenue generating ads (gasp)....
I don't think I understand the comment that democracy equals kittens and breasts. Between kittens and breasts and somebody foisting his or her vision of what photography should be upon us simple folk... between those extremes overrepresented in this thread is something reasonable. If you re-read what I proposed, you will see that it is more of a representative democracy than a free for all.
Last edited by keithwms; 08-13-2011 at 09:51 PM. Click to view previous post history.
i don't see how this is a low priced offset printed book and it can cost 20$
100 people participated in the survey and most of them weren't interested
in submitting work to 1 person to be juried/curated.
then ... out of that small pool of apug talent who ARE interested ...
they will buy 500-1000 of these books ?
Last edited by jnanian; 08-13-2011 at 09:59 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Given the economics of this, there is no way this effort is going to succeed without the final product being POD. Frankly, I've seen some pretty damned nice books lately coming out of the POD process. The folks over on LF Info did a self-published book that way and while not the paragon of printing perfection that is 600 lpi quadtone offset printing, it looked pretty damned good, and nobody got left holding the bag with a capital investment tied up in hundreds of copies of a book that would never sell. The remaining question is, WHICH POD service provides the best book, at the most reasonable cost? That is being investigated now, and a statement from the organizers (myself, Joel, Rachelle and Ian) will be forthcoming shortly along with a statement of purpose and submission guidelines.
Magnachrom was POD right? I liked it.
I also see real value in a POD journal that at least strives to pull some wonderful pieces from the torrent of content that runs by us all too quickly. I refer not only to images but also beautiful comments or insights (all of which could be nominated per my hypothetical button, ahem).
The great thing about an internet forum like this is that it delivers so much content. But that is the bad thing too, of course... so much fine work gets buried. A journal might at least elevate some representative items from the blur.
And there is a pride aspect too, let's be honest. Some apuggers would be really tickled to have an image in a journal or book. I like that thought. Let this cultivate the egos of those people, rather than those of any single editor.